Jury hears closing arguments in Manafort trial

Closing arguments have been delivered in Paul Manafort's trial, with the prosecution arguing the case boils down to "Mr. Manafort and his lies." Manafort's trial for tax evasion and bank fraud is the first to emerge from special counsel Robert Mueller's Russia investigation.

Jacquelyn Martin/AP
Members of the defense team for Paul Manafort, Kevin Downing (l.), Richard Westling (c.), and Thomas Zehnle, walk to federal court for closing arguments in the trial of the former Trump campaign chairman, in Alexandria, Va., on Aug. 15, 2018.

Paul Manafort lied to keep himself flush with cash and later to maintain his luxurious lifestyle when his income dropped off, prosecutors told jurors Wednesday in closing arguments at the former Trump campaign chairman's financial fraud trial.

The government's case boils down to "Mr. Manafort and his lies," prosecutor Greg Andres said.

"When you follow the trail of Mr. Manafort's money, it is littered with lies," Mr. Andres said as he made his final argument that the jury should find President Trump's former campaign chairman guilty of 18 felony counts.

Attorneys for Mr. Manafort, who is accused of tax evasion and bank fraud, spoke next, arguing against his guilt by saying he left the particulars of his finances to other people.

Manafort's trial is the first to emerge from special counsel Robert Mueller's Russia investigation, but it does not relate to Russian election interference or possible coordination with Mr. Trump's campaign – the main topics of Mr. Mueller's probe.

Attorney Richard Westling told jurors that the fact that Manafort employed a team of accountants, bookkeepers, and tax preparers shows he wasn't trying to hide anything. The lawyer appeared to be trying to blunt the effect of testimony from some of the people who handled Manafort's finances, including his bookkeeper, who said he concealed offshore bank accounts and lied to them.

Mr. Westling said the evidence against Manafort has been cherry-picked by Mueller's team and doesn't show jurors the full picture.

"They've done a good job of selectively pulling the information today, and it is a selection," he said of the prosecution. None of the banks involved reported Manafort's activities as suspicious, he said.

During the prosecution's arguments, jurors took notes as Manafort primarily directed his gaze at a computer screen where documents were shown. The screen showed emails written by Manafort that contained some of the most damning evidence that he was aware of the fraud and not simply a victim of underlings who managed his financial affairs.

Andres highlighted one email in which he said Manafort sent an inflated statement of his income to bank officers reviewing a loan application. He highlighted another in which Manafort acknowledged his control of one of more than 30 holding companies in Cyprus that prosecutors say he used to funnel more than $60 million he earned advising politicians in Ukraine.

Prosecutors say Manafort falsely declared that money to be loans rather than income to keep from paying taxes on it.

"Ladies and gentlemen, a loan is not income, and income is not a loan. You do not need to be a tax expert to understand this," Andres said.

The government says Manafort hid at least $16 million in income from the IRS between 2010 and 2014 by disguising the Ukraine money as loans and hiding it in the foreign banks. Then, after his money in Ukraine dried up, they allege, he defrauded banks by lying about his income on loan applications and concealing other financial information, such as mortgages.

Manafort chose not to testify or call any witnesses in his defense. His lawyers have tried to blame their client's financial mistakes on his former deputy, Rick Gates, calling him a liar and philanderer.

Mr. Gates, who struck a plea deal with prosecutors, was the government's key witness and has provided much of the drama of the trial so far. During testimony, he was forced to admit embezzling hundreds of thousands of dollars from Manafort and conducting an extramarital affair.

Neither Manafort nor Gates have been charged in connection with their Trump campaign work. But Mueller's legal team says it discovered Manafort hiding millions of dollars in income as a result of the ongoing probe.

In the prosecution's earlier arguments, Andres said the government isn't asking jurors to like Gates or take everything he said at "face value." Andres said the testimony of other witnesses and the hundreds of documents are enough to convict Manafort on tax evasion and bank fraud charges.

"Does the fact that Mr. Gates had an affair 10 years ago make Mr. Manafort any less guilty?" Andres asked, noting that Manafort didn't choose a "Boy Scout" to aid a criminal scheme.

He also scoffed at the defense's characterization of Gates's embezzlement as having had his "hand in the cookie jar."

"Ladies and gentlemen, this wasn't a cookie jar. It was a dumpster of hidden money in foreign bank accounts," Andres said, noting it was all Manafort's.

Referring to charts compiled by an IRS accounting specialist, Andres told jurors that Manafort declared only some of his foreign income on his federal income tax returns and repeatedly failed to disclose millions of dollars that streamed into the US to pay for luxury items, services, and loans. In 2012, Manafort's most successful year during his Ukrainian work, he reported $5.3 million. But he told the government nothing about another $9.2 million that went to pay for loans and other items, prosecutors said.

The prosecutor said Manafort should have been well aware each time he signed tax and financial documents indicating that he had no foreign accounts to declare. "Mr. Manafort was willful," Andres said.

On Tuesday, US District Court Judge T.S. Ellis III rejected a defense motion that the case should be dismissed because the government had not met its burden of proof. Manafort's lawyers asked the judge to toss out all the charges, but they focused in particular on four bank-fraud charges.

Manafort's lawyers argued there is no way that one of the banks, Federal Savings Bank, could have been defrauded because its chairman, Stephen Calk, knew full well that Manafort's finances were in disarray but approved the loan to him anyway. Witnesses testified that Mr. Calk pushed the loans through because he wanted a post in the Trump administration.

Mr. Ellis, in making his ruling, said the defense made a "significant" argument, but that the decision was "an issue for the jury" to decide.

This story was reported by The Associated Press. Associated Press writers Mary Clare Jalonick and Anne Flaherty contributed to this report.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to Jury hears closing arguments in Manafort trial
Read this article in
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today